Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 08:05:17PM -0400, Brendan Burns wrote:
>>>On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>I'm about to start tinkering with the Q2 sources, having chosen
>>>icculus-quake2 over quake2forge for several reasons. I was wondering
>>>if you could confirm some things for me:
>>>>>>- The build system is better to me (I hate all that autoconf/automake
>>>stuff.) Any plans to revamp it? (I hope no move to autoconf /
>>>automake!)
>>>>Well, I think that's the first time anyone has called the build system
>>"better" but no, there are no current plans to move to autoconf. We
>>should probably split the Makefile into a bunch of smaller makefiles
>>and start using suffix rules. (anyone? anyone?) but I'm not going to do
>>it anytime soon.
>>> I'll probably sit and overhaul build infrastructure during the next few
> days whan I have spare cycles.
>> I also want to thank Brendan for not going after autotools. ;-) They're
> real hassle to support and to fix, from my experience. Also, files they
> generate (e.g., ./configure) are hardly readable.
>> ./danfe
>>
I think I like the idea of having a 'normal' Makefile-based
system for general development, then an autotools system when
distributing sources to end-users. That's how I (plan to) do it
on my projects.
--
http://www.it-is-truth.org/